1. Technical Field
The present invention relates in general to an improved railway crossing and, in particular, to an improved railway diamond crossing with a reversible common insert. The crossing also includes a taper joint construction to minimize wheel impacts at the casting-to-rail interface. The taper joint connection is differs from the prior art as the casting design allows for the castings to be easily machined.
2. Description of the Related Art
Railway crossings, generally referred to as diamond crossings, occur where one railway line crosses over another. At the present time most railway crossings have to be individually designed because the crossing angles vary from one crossing to another. It has been found that, in general, very few crossings have the same crossing angle. This means that each and every crossing has to be custom designed and custom made.
Railway crossings wear faster than continuous railway lines due to train wheels impacting at the crossing points. This generally results in the crossings having to be replaced or repaired frequently. As these crossings are custom designed, in other words are non-standard, then the costs of replacing or repairing crossing members are high.
There are two crossing designs commonly used today that feature reversible castings. One is similar to U.S. Pat. No. 2,003,398 to Strong, which is generally depicted in the AREMA plan No. 747. More recently, U.S. Pat. No. 5,746,400 to Remington, also has been used. The reversible feature is related to the castings and center connecting rails.
As the crossing angle changes, the distance between intersections increases. Typically, these designs are connected with rail sections that are either bent or straight, and while reversible within the limits of any one given crossing, the lengths of these rails are dependent on the angle of the crossing. The length of the casting arms where the rails are attached is subject to a designer's interpretation and as such, a crossing of the same angle designed by more than one engineer or company can have connecting rails with different lengths. This causes a significant issue when it is time to replace the crossing since each design is unique. Both of the aforementioned solutions have a mitered rail connection to the casting that utilizes the full head of the rail. While a mitered joint is deemed more desirable than a square butt joint, there is an impact at the transition. Hence, although these designs are workable an improved solution would be desirable.